Crystal River Happenings

Today is BOCC Tuesday. As mentioned last week, there are a few agenda items that are out of whack. We will see how the board addresses those things. Hopefully my packages I am expecting arrive early today so I can head down to the meeting, otherwise, I am watching online today.

But... today I want to shift focus back to Crystal River.

A few weeks ago, news broke that former senior staffer for the City of Crystal River, Leslie Bollin, was threatening a lawsuit over her December 2025 "demotion" from Director of Parks and Recreation back to her old position of Community Engagement Director and Public Information Officer. The city claimed that they decided to no longer utilize the separate Parks and Rec division, so that left her position as un-needed. She was still within the probation window and the city moved her back to her old position.

She threatened a lawsuit and claimed retaliation. This goes back to the city trying to oust City Manager Audra Curts behind the scenes and apparently Bollin was approached by some of the city council members to see her willingness to step in as City Manager once Curts was fired. That obviously did not happen, Bollin was returned to her previous position and claimed it was retaliation for her "involvement" in the Curts issue.

Ultimately, she has come to an agreement with the City to resign from her position. In return, she will receive $15,000, which is likely the different between her previous salary and the pay bump to the director position.

Here is the settlement in full.

A few things.

1) This settlement obviously ends any threat of a lawsuit against the city in regards to Bollin's employment.

2) The settlement states that she will be considered eligible for rehire, but that the city will not hire her going forward and she will not seek further employment. If she applies for a position in the city, the city does not have to move her forward in the process. I suppose that is for her personnel file for a new job going forward. If future employer calls to ask if she would be eligible for rehire.

3) The City agrees to remove the December 2025 "demotion" letter from her personnel file and place it in a separate file. But this will still be subject to public records disclosure. Not sure the point of this, except to hide it from someone who asks for her personnel file... but would it still not be a personnel file? It just goes in some folder titled what exactly? If someone records requests her personnel file, why would this second file not be included in that request?

4) Both sides agree not to disparage the other. Makes sense. No need to be blasting one another publicly or privately now that all this is over.

In any case, why does the City Council not vote on this settlement? I went back and looked at the meeting agendas for the meeting last night and two weeks ago. This settlement agreement was not on any agenda.

How can the city enter into this without approval by the Council? The city's HR manual gives the City Manager authority to determine filed grievances and appeals of employment decisions, but I do not think that a settlement offer like this falls under those items. Curts does has some spending authority without Council approval, so perhaps that is why.

I would think the council would have a say in this due to the legal situation. Hmmm.

The City Council last night heard from the current owner of the 579 building. There was quite a bit of back and forth. The owner proposed 2 options.

One plan keeps some of the buildings intact, but they will be rehabbed into modern buildings (bottom layout). This is his preferred option. The other option (top) is a complete teardown of the buildings and then creating outparcels that would allow future use.

The owner has asked the council for another 90 days to try to lock in leases with national chains to fill the buildings. If he is unable to do so, he will then move into demoing the building.

The council pushed back on that a bit and wants a firm agreement that he will demo after the 90 days if he cannot get the leases locked in.

Ultimately, they came to an agreement to allow up to 90 days for him to lock in the leases. If he does, the project continues to where he will renovate the buildings and start the process of building out for the tenants... apparently a national clothing store brand that will open two stores.

If he cannot lock those in, he will begin the demo process and secure the permits within 30 days...

So looks like some type of resolution is coming in regards to this building.